Opinion
STEVEN G. KALAR, Federal Public Defender, GALIA AMRAM PHILLIPS, Assistant Federal Public Defender, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Defendant Allen Fong.
GARRICK S. LEW, Esq., RICHARD G. HULLINGER, Esq., Attorneys for Defendant Ya Huai Hung.
RANDALL KNOX, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Robert Chun.
BRIAN GETZ, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Jie Mu.
ALAN DRESSLER, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Laurence Shu Kwan Lee.
SETH CHAZIN, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Kevin Hartig.
GILBERT EISENBERG, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Waylen Fong.
ALEXANDRA McCLURE, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Angelin Chuong.
SCOTT SUGARMAN, Esq., Attorney for Defendant Chonthicha Jaemratanasophin.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 ET. SEQ
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
The United States of America, by and through its attorney of record, and the above-captioned defendants ("defendants"), by and through their respective attorneys of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On March 26, 2015, this Court granted the parties' stipulation continuing the above-captioned matter from March 31, 2015 through June 9, 2015, and excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act to June 9, 2015 on the basis of effective preparation of counsel under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
2. The United States produced the initial discovery package shortly after defendants' arraignments. Upon assignment of a discovery coordinator in or about February 2015, the United States made five additional productions of voluminous discovery to the discovery coordinator, the last of which was picked up by the coordinator on April 27, 2015. The discovery coordinator has produced some of the discovery to the defense lawyers, but needs more time to produce the remaining discovery. Part of the delay is due to the fact that the discovery coordinator was chosen as a juror in a lengthy trial, which is expected to be completed on or about June 12, 2015. Upon receipt of the remaining discovery from the coordinator, the defense lawyers will need additional time to review those materials.
3. For the reasons stated above, the parties stipulate and agree that this matter should be continued from June 9, 2015 to August 18, 2015 at 2:30 p.m., and that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The parties further stipulate and agree that the time from June 9, 2015 through August 18, 2015, should be excluded on the basis that the ends of justice are served by taking such action which outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial and for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
ORDER
Upon the parties' stipulation, and GOOD CAUSE appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-captioned matter shall be continued from June 9, 2015 to August 18, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. and that the time from June 9, 2015 through August 18, 2015, shall be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). The Court finds that (A) failure to grant the continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence; and (B) the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.